¶ 35 A trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a judgment of dissolution of marriage. In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1017 (2011). However, the court exceeds the scope of its authority to enforce a judgment if it imposes a new and different obligation.

Prior to reaching the merits, petitioner argues that respondent's brief violates Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), because her contentions lack citations to the record and supporting authority. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013); see also In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1019 (2011) ("Arguments that do not comply with Rule 341(h)(7) do not merit consideration on appeal and may be rejected by this court for that reason alone."). We have reviewed the briefs, and we agree with petitioner that many of respondent's contentions are merely supported by conclusory assertions, and are thus forfeited on appeal. See Hendry, 409 Ill. App. 3d at 1019.

To determine intent, courts look only to the language of the dissolution judgment, absent ambiguity. In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill.App.3d 1012, 1017 (2011). A court shall not depart from the plain language by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that conflict with the expressed intent.

It is well settled that the rules of contract construction are applicable to the interpretation of a marital settlement agreement and that a court's primary objective is to give effect to the intent of the parties. In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1017 (2011). Where the language of the agreement is clear and its meaning is unambiguous, intent must be determined solely from the agreement's language and courts must give that language such effect.

In re Marriage of Frank , 2015 IL App (3d) 140292, ¶ 11, 396 Ill.Dec. 855, 40 N.E.3d 740. It is well settled that the rules of contract construction are applicable to the interpretation of a marital settlement agreement and that a court's primary objective is to give effect to the intent of the parties. In re Marriage of Hendry , 409 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1017, 350 Ill.Dec. 924, 949 N.E.2d 716 (2011). Where the language of the agreement is clear and its meaning is unambiguous, intent must be determined solely from the agreement's language and courts must give that language such effect.

¶ 17 A post-dissolution petition initiates a new proceeding and effectively is a new pleading even though it does not present a new cause of action in the dissolution case. In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1016 (2011); In re Marriage of Duggan, 376 Ill. App. 3d 725, 741 (2007). "To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615, a complaint must be both legally and factually sufficient."

Id. The court, however, retains indefinite jurisdiction to enforce its orders relating to the dissolution judgment. In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill.App.3d 1012, 1016, 350 Ill.Dec. 924, 949 N.E.2d 716 (2011). A distinction exists between enforcement and modification of an order.

To the extent that the court's ruling required it to interpret the MSA, our review is de novo. See In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1017 (2011). Although respondent has not challenged expressly the trial court's jurisdiction to order him to sell the properties, any waiver or forfeiture in that regard is not a limitation on our jurisdiction and we may disregard it.

However, even after a judgment of dissolution becomes final, a court retains indefinite jurisdiction to enforce its orders relating to the dissolution of marriage. Waggoner v. Waggoner, 78 Ill.2d 50, 53 (1979); In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill.App.3d 1012, 1016 (2011). Thus, whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant petitioner relief depends on whether petitioner sought to enforce the Judgment or to modify it.

The intent of the court is to be determined only by the language of the dissolution judgment, absent an ambiguity. In re Marriage of Hendry, 409 Ill.App.3d 1012, 1017 (2011).